The agency’s release Monday of documents showing the wider scope of its BOLO lists came with an assurance from acting commissioner Daniel Werfel that it would stop using those lists to flag groups for review. The BOLO words had been in use as recently as this month, the New York Times reported. The instructions in the lists illustrate how the agency was using some of the various key words as shortcuts to identify 501(c)(4) groups. The organizations’ tax-exempt status depends on them operating primarily as social welfare groups, with politicking making up no more than 40 percent of theiractivity.

The word “progressive,” for example, is a “common thread” through politically left groups, one list reads. “Activities appear to lean toward a new political party. Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican. You see references to ‘blue’ as being ‘progressive.’ ” The words “open source software” suggest a for-profit business, the list says, and “occupied territory advocacy” indicates propaganda and a “one-sided point ofview.”

From the new information revealed by the IRS, it would appear the agency’s keyword searches, while arguably inappropriate, did not confine themselves to targeting right-wing groups. So now Democrats such as Rep. Sandy Levin want to know why the original report on IRS targeting didn’t make that clear. In a letter to J. Russell George, the inspector general for tax administration, Levin wrote, “Your audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of congressional investigations and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamentalway.”

George has said his audit came in response to Rep. Darrell Issa, who “specifically requested a review of IRS actions related to conservative groups,” Politico reports. And Rep. Dave Camp, who chairs the House Ways and Means committee, said through a spokesman: “Tea Party groups were not just on a BOLO they were (1) sent intrusive and inappropriate questions, (2) had their donors threatened with gift taxes and (3) had their confidential informationleaked.”

If that response is any clue, it appears the sense of right-wing vicitmization might be altered by this new information, but it’s not likely to goaway.